The Relationship Between Gravity and Inertia

From studying the Quetzalcoatlus, it is clear that both gravity and inertia must have increased since the time when this dinosaur dominated the skies. For present day gravity and inertia, it was way too big to fly, and its head was way too large for its neck.

This rhymes well with Halton Arp's intrinsic red-shift hypothesis in which he suggests that mass (shorthand for inertia and gravity) is something that increases over time through a process of condensation of mass onto existing matter.

By combining Halton Arp's hypothesis with Morton Spears' simple model of the atom (chapter 8 of his book), we find a mechanism in which mass can be condensed onto protons and neutrons through absorption of electron positron pairs created by high energy photons.

Taken all together, we get an explanation for the increase in both gravity and inertia over time. However, one problem remains. There does not seem to be enough high energy photons to account for the increase in mass.

The main objection to the mass accumulation model for the expanding Earth has always been that there simply isn't enough matter and/or radiation to account for the increase in gravity. This is why Peter Woodhead came to the conclusion that Earth is expanding due to internal pressures.

For Peter Woodhead's theory to work, some tweaking to Newton's formula was required, so I came up with a capacitor model of gravity in which I proposed an electrical model with the following two main features:

1. gravity is a dipole
2. gravity attracts inertia universally with both poles

Such a model would result in a hollow planet that conforms exactly with Newton's formula for all cases except when two large bodies come into close proximity with each other.

What is important to note here is that gravity and inertia are treated as two distinct things. I have later formalized this as follows:

Charged quanta interacting with each other to form matter produce inertia and gravity in much the same way charge quanta in free motion produce electric current and magnetism.

If this is correct, the relationship between inertia and gravity may not be linear. Gravity may increase exponentially with mass condensation, while inertia increases linearly. If so, there is no longer any lack of radiation to explain the increase in gravity. The condensation that produces a small increase in inertia may well produce a large increase in gravity.

This is exactly what Newton predicts with his formula:

F = GM1M2/r^2.

If both M1 and M2 increase, the resulting increase in gravity is not additive, but exponential.

The equivalent formula for gravity based on the capacitor model is

F = GM(q1)M(q2)/r^2 - GM(q1)M(q2)/r^3

where

G is Newton's universal constant
M() is a function that produces mass from charged quanta
q1 is the charged quanta of body 1
q2 is the charged quanta of body 2
r is the distance between the geometrical centers of the two bodies  

The positive term expresses the long range attracting force and the negative term expresses the short range repelling force.

(I have since come to realize that the repelling force is in fact the electrostatic force, so stability of orbits can be expressed without a special short range repelling force, as explained here.)

This again leads us to the conclusion that all heavenly bodies are hollow and that their gravity increase over time. The increase in gravity adds to the internal pressure of such bodies, causing them eventually to crack and expand.

Earth expansion seen from the south pole. All oceans are rifts.